"We can't print your photo, it looks too professional" ?!?!?

[Jesper]

Watch out when you want to print your photos at Walmart:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html

Simply incredible...... :rolleyes:

[Tom W]

This is one thing that the local camera shop does do well - take it there instead.

[CyberPet]

I'd take it as a compliment though. :D

I love that headline of the article, what a spot on headline "Snap judgement"... brilliant!!!

[AjP]

I print all my photos online and getting it back withing a week, much cheaper then wallmart and quality is muuuuuuch better.
But the story is sad-funny :)

[PhotosGuy]

There was another thread going around here last week. They've never said anything to me & I feel SO left out! :D

[Curtis N]

When I first started experimenting with home studio lighting, I took a few portraits of my wife. The Wal*Mart Photo Dept. manager had me sign a form and swear on a stack of Bibles that I took the picture. I was flattered, though I wasn't real proud of the shot.

A week or so later, I took some more portraits which turned out much better and looked more professional. They just printed them and took my money, no questions asked. Go figure. While many lab employees at Wal*Mart and elsewhere are well-trained and conscientious, I guess we can only expect so much from teenagers working for minumum wage.

Today's affordable computer technology makes it easy to violate copyright laws, and there aren't any easy answers, but it seems sometimes labs go a bit too far to protect their own backside.

If a lab ever refused to print my files, I would inform the manager bluntly that I buy hundreds of prints per year and there are plenty of other vendors who would appreciate my business.

[neil_r]

I never have a problem but then again I use a pro lab. ( http://www.colab.co.uk (http://www.colab.co.uk/) )

Of course the other reason could be that my pics are not good enough, but hey I am not going there :confused:

N

[cmosdos]

Did read it right? There was a $100,000.00 settlement?

The $100,000.00 was to The Professional Photographers of America in year 2000. Over a lawsuit with Kmart. Not this person.

I understand Walmart's position on not printing the pictures. But, I think they should first say they needs a release form from the photographer before they can give the pictures to the customer. If the customer states they are the photographer, have the customer sign a form stating that fact. Now Walmart is released of responsibility if the photos end up being stolen. The customer can be sought after for damages.

[BrandonSi]

I got that at Walgreens the other day, the girl was really concerned and didn't want to get in trouble.. I just rattled of some the locations of the photos, shutter speeds, and post processing adjustments I'd made like white balance, etc.. and she seemed satisfied.

[CyberPet]

Maybe a good idea to add Copyright info into the files with your name after you've saved them on a CD or whatever (I guess you also can add owner info in some cameras through some software - haven't figured this one out yet since I never loaded the software that came with the camera).... then you can tell them to look up the image info for your name and show them the drivers license. (If they even *know* how to find that information!)

[kb244]

Doesnt surprise me, walmart had a list of problems in the past, even heard of one case woman goes in drops off her negs ( and this is a film based scenario ), comes back to pick them up, and the teller tells her that they were not shot by her, but a professional, and that they cannot give her the prints.... but that she still needs to pay for them. She tried to walk out the door they had her arrested. She ended up having to get the model to come down to where she was at to prove she was the photographer.

In the end you just have to submit a release form so that you'd have no hassle from then on.

[kb244]

Maybe a good idea to add Copyright info into the files with your name after you've saved them on a CD or whatever (I guess you also can add owner info in some cameras through some software - haven't figured this one out yet since I never loaded the software that came with the camera).... then you can tell them to look up the image info for your name and show them the drivers license. (If they even *know* how to find that information!)

Their software doesnt nessarily allow them to see the Exif information, simply because every camera manufacture's exif information beyound the basics are usually unique and different to every picture so in order to do this, you'd have to view the entire exif dump which may be too much of a hassle in walmart's eyes. Also unless you programed the camera with your name, or the raw processor, or photoshop, its not going to show up. Even if the software was capable, I doubt they trained their lab technicians to use it in that manner.

[Pekka]

Doesnt surprise me, walmart had a list of problems in the past, even heard of one case woman goes in drops off her negs ( and this is a film based scenario ), comes back to pick them up, and the teller tells her that they were not shot by her, but a professional, and that they cannot give her the prints.... but that she still needs to pay for them. She tried to walk out the door they had her arrested. She ended up having to get the model to come down to where she was at to prove she was the photographer.

If above is true why on earth do people go there??

[BrandonSi]

Doesnt surprise me, walmart had a list of problems in the past, even heard of one case woman goes in drops off her negs ( and this is a film based scenario ), comes back to pick them up, and the teller tells her that they were not shot by her, but a professional, and that they cannot give her the prints.... but that she still needs to pay for them. She tried to walk out the door they had her arrested. She ended up having to get the model to come down to where she was at to prove she was the photographer.

In the end you just have to submit a release form so that you'd have no hassle from then on.

Too bad that didn't happen to me! My lawyer would've been all over that and I guarantee I'd be picking some nice L glass because of it :)

[Jackal]

Ok, how do you avoid problems like these? Who must submit a release form? Me? I have no idea how that would determine that I actually took the pictures.

Not that I'd go to walmart now to print anything after hearing these stories. But...it would be good to know incase it happens elsewhere.

[kb244]

Typically if you really had to go thru them, I would ask for a release form in advance, by filing a release, any time you come back they'll just see a release has been file, and shouldnt be any problems. Least I wouldnt think there would be. But in the end, why even bother with walmart, sam's, meijers, etc etc, when you can goto an actual professional lab printer. The problem with the stores like walmart is that while some do use lab printers such as the fuji frontier to keep their print prices competitive they use the cheapest paper available to them, one week it could be cheapest kodak paper, next week fuiji, week after that something else ( tho a bit of an exageration on time frame ). So depending on the prints were on certain paper they could vary from time to time. Ideally I wouldnt mind having an Epson R1800, but people dont have the initial capital to spend 550$ plus ink and paper, even tho the prints last longer than lab, usually better looking (good paper over cheaply chosen lab paper). But I guess the key is convience, just upload it and go pick it up conviences.

[Curtis N]

If above is true why on earth do people go there??
1) They're the cheapest game in town. 17 cents for a 4 x 6. I don't mind paying more for better prints or better service, but no one else in town has consistently beat them in either category.

2) They're quick. 1 hour or less. If they aren't backed up, sometimes they can crank out prints in 15 minutes. I can get it done in one trip. It's the culmination of the instant gratification mindset of digital photography.

3) They aren't all that bad. The Wal*Mart near me does a nice job and they handle copyright questions much more professionally. The quality of the management varies greatly from store to store.

4) They might be the only game in town. Pro labs only exist where there is a demand for their services. If you don't live in a city of considerable size, you're stuck with the *Marts, drug stores and similar retail places that generally aren't any better. The only other option is online/mail order vendors, and that means greater turnaround time.

[MTalley]

I did some portrait work of a high school senior for some friends of mine (my first paying customer, as a matter of fact) and they elected to have all of the output generated on my inkjet printer (Epson R800) instead of photo lab.

When the mother took an 8x10 in to the WalMart bakery to have a cake made with a transfer of the picture applied to the cake surface (one of those things they'll apparently do there), the bakery personnel refused, indicating that the picture looked professional and that they weren't allowed to copy it without a signed release from the photographer.

WalMart has some nice pre-printed brochures on their copyright policy, including a tear-off page for the photographer and the customer to fill out stating that it is OK for them to copy the picture in question. I filled one of those out and sent it to the mother. WalMart gladly obliged her request once she had that in hand.

Funny thing is, the copy they were making was so perishable. I'm not sure that many of the local portrait studios offer portrait cakes, as far as I know.

[PhotosGuy]

When the mother took an 8x10 in to the WalMart bakery to have a cake made with a transfer of the picture applied to the cake surface (one of those things they'll apparently do there), the bakery personnel refused, indicating that the picture looked professional and that they weren't allowed to copy it without a signed release from the photographer. Is it legal to eat © material? :D:D

[montreal]

I boycott Walmart because of their anti-union stance.:rolleyes:
Sorry for the off-topic comment.

[mblanton]

I love the Wal-Mart photo center for several reasons.

1. The fuji system they are currently using is state of the art and cost around a half-million dollars. It is nice to have that kind of resouce at my disposal at such a competitive price.

2. The staff at there lab know me by name and are extra friendly when I come by. I have been given no problems about making prints. We exchange lots of information and are on a very friendly basis. I could probably go back and operate the machines if I asked nicely.

3. It's 8 miles from my home. The only other lab is 35 miles away and uses an old Noritsu minilab.

I don't do alot of paid photography...mainly because I don't want to. I have done a couple of small jobs and it was nice to offer a very competitive price and extremely fast turn around. These days price is a big determining factor and Wal-Mart saves me money which allows me to pass the savings on to very happy customers.

The End.

Mike

[Citizensmith]

When I first started experimenting with home studio lighting, I took a few portraits of my wife. The Wal*Mart Photo Dept. manager had me sign a form and swear on a stack of Bibles that I took the picture.

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have got you to sware on a copy of Lens Works 3?

I think the real moral is that Walmort are a bunch or retards and the country would be much better off if they didn't exist.

I print at home because I can get better, cheap, fast results than there. And it's only about 3 feet from my computer (or 3.5 depending on which printer I use).

[jfrancho]

My local grocery store lab didn't print a few of my "experimental" pics because they thought they were mistakes.

[Citizensmith]

My local grocery store lab didn't print a few of my "experimental" pics because they thought they were mistakes.

I had something similar, a lab that used to put little sticker on photos offering suggestions like "Blurry - try a faster shutter speed". Nice idea, but whenever I was trying something new I'd get a rash of the little stickers.

Glad I'm digital and don't have to ever deal with the likes of photolabs again. I'm sure the pro labs are great, I could just never afford to use them.

[mdmedicgod]

Just a thought... Aren't all photographs copyrighted per say????? So how come I can take a photo that joe blow shot and copy it all day long, but if they picture looks "professionaly" done. Why do they get a stiff adherence to the copyright laws... Just a thought

[awp]

Doesnt surprise me, walmart had a list of problems in the past, even heard of one case woman goes in drops off her negs ( and this is a film based scenario ), comes back to pick them up, and the teller tells her that they were not shot by her, but a professional, and that they cannot give her the prints.... but that she still needs to pay for them. She tried to walk out the door they had her arrested. She ended up having to get the model to come down to where she was at to prove she was the photographer.

In the end you just have to submit a release form so that you'd have no hassle from then on.

Wal Mart allows you to decline to purchase any unwanted prints and if you do not want any including the negative, there is no charge. I can not even imagine management trying to arrest this person. I use a local Walmart for my prints. Before I began to use them I introduced myself to the manager and explained what I would be doing and how often. He in turn introduced me to his employees. They have familarized themselves with my work, produced excellent prints as well as refused to copy my work when presented by customers.

[sugar_babygirli]

wow amazing article and that's a bit funny because that happened to me?

I emailed some photos of myself I took to my grandmother in another state, she took them to walmart to have prints made, and said they were professional and couldn't print them. That was such a huge compliment to me! Anyways, I made up a form for her to give them saying the photographer (her granddaughter) gives her permission for prints to be made and they could NOT believe it was taken by an amateur! :D :D That was cool.

It happens every time she goes, but she just pulls out that piece of paper I gave her and that works fine. ;)

[ryan_kalani]

Watch out when you want to print your photos at Walmart:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html

Simply incredible...... :rolleyes:
i would be flattered but would soon get angry if they did not release the photos after me showing my ID to match the copyright on the photos.

[Curtis N]

I print at home because I can get better, cheap, fast results than there.My wife and I have an ongoing argument over who makes more trips to Wal*Mart - Me, to buy prints, or her, to buy ink cartridges. I'm pretty sure I know who spends more.

[rdenney]

Simply incredible...... :rolleyes:

What's incredible is that the PPofA sued Kmart, and that Kmart let them get away with it. I used to belong to that organization and it's an embarassing display of litigious extortion. Protecting professional photographers? My ass. Did they give that settlement money to pros whose work had been copied? How would they know?

It seems quite clear to me that the fault in copying is not the photofinisher who has NO WAY of determining the origins of the image, but rather of the person who paid them who certifies that the image is theirs to copy. If the PPofA had sued to get the customer names of people to further an investigation into individual copying, then fine. But they blamed K-Mart for the crimes of their customers--crimes that are UTTERLY UNDETECTABLE and therefore UNENFORCEABLE by Kmart. Of course there will be distortions as described in this article.

Of course, the only reason the PPofA went after Kmart was because they were a visible target with deep pockets, while the guilty parties were anonymously numerous and not worth pursuing. There is no parallel with, say, Napster. With Napster, it was clear that an overwhelmingly high percentage of the material being copied was an infringement, and it was therefore reasonable to conclude that Napster was knowingly colluding in an illegal activity. But in case of a big photofinisher, the vast majority of the photos being printed were made by the person standing before them--the person who owns the copyright. Thus, designing a highly restrictive policy around an activity that is both undetectable and acknowledged to be a tiny percentage of the total will create more problems than it solves. Kmart should have made the PPofA argue it in court.

Of course, $100,000 is "go away" money for a corporation the size of Kmart. I'm quite sure that the settlement stipulated that Kmart admitted no wrongdoing. They probably figured that it would cost them more to litigate it. We pay the price for their pusillanimity. (I just love opportunites to use that word, heh, heh.)



Commercial photographers are having hard times because of digital photography. But it isn't just commercial photographers. There are a number of industries where the technical difficulties were sufficient to demand real expertise from a few commercial providers have been displaced by software methods that put that power in the hands of the end consumer. We are all happy to benefit from it even if we are displaced by it. The commerical photographer who scans negatives or shoots digitally and then prints on his Epson printer is displacing the commerical lab technician without feeling any guilt, so it's a bit hypocritical for the photographer to cry foul when their skills are displaced by the wide availability of more powerful tools usable by the end consumer.

The one place where I'm a real expert is in my professional specialization, the timing of traffic signals in networks. But there are software tools that make it easy for agency technicians to do the work themselves. They don't do it nearly as well because they don't know what I know and their software doesn't properly model traffic, and yes they have sold their souls to software. I've done my share of crying about it, but the only possible response is to change my approach to the business. I now develop manuals and teach others how to do it, in addition to designing the systems rather than operating them. I found an area where specialized knowledge is still specialized, but that still depends on my previous skills.

The article mentioned photographers who were charging for the things that make them expert--their knowledge of lighting, composition, effects, and absolute reliability--instead of making their money on things that don't set them apart like merely making prints. As with my day job, it seems to me the only possible course of action. Many are finding that their lighting and composition skills weren't really that good, and they are getting pushed out by talented amateurs. I feel for them, but I fear they have focused on the wrong skills to develop.



Rick "who thinks greed and deep-pockets extortion through litigation are good only for lawyers" Denney

[PhotosGuy]

Good rant, Rick! ;-)

[Belmondo]

Is it legal to eat © material? :D:D

As long as you don't try to pass it.

[Tom Reid]

Most if not all of my prints are done at my local Walmart. I can only think of three occassions where I was not happy with the product or service but that can happen anywhere in the retail business. On those occassions things were made right almost immediately. I've taken the time to get to know and compliment the technicians behind the counter. I think that makes a difference.

[ScottE]

Is it legal to eat © material? :D:D

That's why they put the circle around the C. It's to protect your digestive system.

[Bruce Hamilton]

I'd take it as a compliment though. :D

Me too. I'd be tickled someone thought my work looked professional. ;)

[Sunshine601]

I had the exact thing happen to me when I tried to get an enlargement at Wal Mart. They claimed it was a professional shot and almost refused to make an enlargement from a 4 x 6 I had taken. That was then. I'd never get prints at Wal Mart again. They always come out looking too blue.

[Poco]

Does anyone have a generic "release" that people could use and sign if they ever run into this problem. I was thinking that you could just write a generic "blah blah... I, the photographer, ... blah blah... allow this person to copy... blah blah" and just leave a blank line at the bottom to sign.

Everyone could just carry it around with them in their wallet and anytime they are harrased they show it. I would bet that it doesn't even matter if there is any reference to the specific photo. Just the fact that you have some sort of release when they ask is probably enough.

I'd bet it would work for photos of which you do not hold the copyright :-) Sort of makes the whole thing rediculous. Sort of like the way they search a 6"x6" purse when entering Disneyland but ignore the pocket of your cargo shorts (I could easily carry 6 purses of that size in my pockets :-).

I've also heard that the "it looks too professional" problem isn't entirely because of copyright concerns. I heard that Walmart doesn't like printing professional photos at their discount prices - but that might be just a rumour. So even if you own the copyright they still don't want to print them at 12 cents a print if you are going to turn around and sell them for $10. I can't find anything on their site indicating this, but it wouldn't surprise me and it would certainly make more sense than "you might not own the copyright".

[jfrancho]

Search results for model release:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=239635
This thread has one for you to cut and paste:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77047&highlight=model+release

[likophoto]

here is how a "photographer release" form looks like...
-------------------------------------

Photographer’s Release Form

Signature of ____________________________________(photographer’ s name - printed)

grants permission to ______________________ (Lab / Store Name) to reproduce the copyrighted images taken on

_____________ (date) for _____________________________________(customer name).

The images will be reproduced as a photo print, photo greeting card, announcement or invitation. Signature of

photographer releases ______________________ (Lab / Store Name) from any copyright infringement.



Photographer, please check one:
__The copyright is being released on all photos taken for customer on the above photo shoot date.
__The copyright is being released on these selected images:

__________________________________________________ ______________________________

__________________________________________________ ______________________________

__________________________________________________ ______________________________





________________________________
Photographer’s Signature

________________________________
Date

(______) _______________________
Business Phone (for verification purposes)

[blinking8s]

walmart did the same thing to me a few weeks back

[Jaymz]

With film camera you could use the negatives as proof you took the photo, atleast as far as I would think. You think you could use the RAW file as a 'negative' for proof?

Just trying to be prepared for anything that could happen, load a dvd full of CR2 files as proof?

[jfrancho]

With film camera you could use the negatives as proof you took the photo, atleast as far as I would think. You think you could use the RAW file as a 'negative' for proof?

Just trying to be prepared for anything that could happen, load a dvd full of CR2 files as proof?What would that prove? Do you think the person at the counter would be able to preview it? Some of them don't even know that digital pictures can be in other formats than jpegs.

[liza]

I had the other extreme happen to me at WalMart the other day. I mentioned the issue of copyright to the WalMart employee, and he said that the moment my images were copied to a CD the copyright became null and void. I smiled sweetly at him and just shook my head!

[Jaymz]

What would that prove? Do you think the person at the counter would be able to preview it? Some of them don't even know that digital pictures can be in other formats than jpegs.

If you found someone who knows what a RAW file is, that may be proof enough that you took the photo. Thats what it would prove, I think, I don't know. Thats why I am asking.

[Poco]

Even if you had a RAW file that proves nothing. You might not own the copyright of the content of the RAW file, or you could fake a RAW file. I'm sure you could create a RAW file if you wanted too badly enough. You could just take a RAW photo of a copyrighted print. It is easy enough to manipulate all the Exif data too.

That is like saying that if you go in with a print for enlargement they should automatically copy it because the print is enough proof that you own the copyright...wrong.

There is no proof. None. Which is why the whole thing is a joke. Any rule that is impossible to enforce is a stupid rule. Hence my suggestion for a generic release.

"I _______ grant permission to myself to reproduce my copyrighted material in any form I want."

You could have it formatted in the form of a business card and just hand them out to the clerk.

[jfrancho]

I'm not sure that getting prints of someone elses photos is infringement. If you aren't going to use them for financial gain, and you acknowledge ownwership of the copyright, is it infringement? Unless you have printed an image that is for sale for a higher value? I still don't understand enough about copyrights. Where's rdenney? He knows the answer.

[Jaymz]

That makes alot of sense. Thank you. :)

[AndreyD]

hilarious story!
thank you !
:-)

[Ausdig]

Have never heard of this in Australia but we usually follow the US in such trends so guess it will happen here soon. :(

I have actually found a fairly good processing shop here in Canberra (Ted's Belconnen if you're close by :) ) and having built a relationship with them the only questions I get are how, where and when. Becuase the staff are are all photograhic enthusiasts they take a great deal of care and are genuinely interested in my photos.

[Tom W]

walmart did the same thing to me a few weeks back

I'm starting to think that this should be a rite of passage - when WalMart rejects your prints as "too professional", you have surpassed a major milestone in your photographic career.

[PhotosGuy]

when WalMart rejects your prints as "too professional", you have surpassed a major milestone in your photographic career. :D Validation by Dufus! ;) You can make a trophy for yourself out of an old D-76 can & put an article in the local paper! "Today, industry professionals issued the ultimate accolade to..." :D:D:D

[Curtis N]

... and having built a relationship with them the only questions I get are how, where and when. This seems like the only real solution. Find a lab you like and work to build a relationship with them. That's easier said than done at W*Mart, because they aren't trained in the value of customer relationships and tend to have a lot of employee turnover, but if you think they make good prints for the money then it's worth a shot. The photo dept. employees at my local W*Mart recognize me and treat me well.

If that doesn't work, find another lab, and let the store manager know why.

[jfrancho]

This seems like the only real solution. Find a lab you like and work to build a relationship with them. That's easier said than done at W*Mart, because they aren't trained in the value of customer relationships and tend to have a lot of employee turnover, but if you think they make good prints for the money then it's worth a shot. The photo dept. employees at my local W*Mart recognize me and treat me well.

If that doesn't work, find another lab, and let the store manager know why.Or you could print your own.

[CoolToolGuy]

Guess what hit USATODAY today -

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-06-16-digital-picture-problems_x.htm

This issue exactly.

Time to get those photo printers cranking!

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

Guess what hit USATODAY today -

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-06-16-digital-picture-problems_x.htm

This issue exactly.

Time to get those photo printers cranking!

Have Fun,

It sounds like they want to get out of the photo printing business. :)

[CoolToolGuy]

It sounds like they want to get out of the photo printing business. :)

That would be one interpretation, but if you ask them they might say they want to get out of the litigation business - and getting that wish might cause the other one to happen. ;)

Have Fun,

[rdenney]

I'm not sure that getting prints of someone elses photos is infringement. If you aren't going to use them for financial gain, and you acknowledge ownwership of the copyright, is it infringement? Unless you have printed an image that is for sale for a higher value? I still don't understand enough about copyrights. Where's rdenney? He knows the answer.

Yes, it is. Financial gain is unrelated to copyright protections, and there is no relief from the consequences for "personal use". There are fair use provisions, such as for critical review and the like, but making a print for your wall is not one of them.

And providing credit to the copyright owner also does not make it okay, though it may limit some damages when you lose the resulting lawsuit, heh, heh.

Most personal use infringements never have consequences because 1.) the copyright owner doesn't know about it, and 2.) the resulting damages aren't worth the costs of litigation. But it's still an infringement.

The simple principle is this, whether it's words, music, or visual artwork: If you didn't make it, it's not yours to copy. If you have a copy produced in 1923 or before and you are in the U.S., you can copy it at will, but otherwise, the only thing you can be sure of is that you can only copy your own creative work. Know that rule, at least, before you break it.

Rick "Do not break the rules before learning them" Denney

[jfrancho]

Yes, it is.Thanks Rick. I figured that, otherwise there would be no hoopla about p2p groups sharing music (or cassettes, back in the '80s). I'm not getting anyone else's prints anytime soon, just needed to get the straight story from someone who knows.

[theflyingkiwi]

Well this is just plan stupid. Walmart really aren't thinking with there brains. This post has proven that anyone, a pro or not can create a release form, just to get the photos. Hell the photo could be copyrighted and they will never know.

the problem is the people on the other end of the counter don't know who is a pro or not. So the only way to get around the problem is also upload a bad photo with the good ones, then those behind the counter who have no training, or no way of knowing who owns what can say, "yes I think I know something about who is a pro and who is not a pro. These photos are not taken by a pro because a pro wouldn't upload this bad photo to be printed"

But at the end of the day if the company in question has any problems why don't they simply just have a form that the customer has to sign saying that they take no responsibility for the printing of these digital photos.

It seems that the westen world has forgotten how think. :) I am glad I live at the edge of the world at times. untill I check camera prices :evil:

[nigelch]

Too bad that didn't happen to me! My lawyer would've been all over that and I guarantee I'd be picking some nice L glass because of it :)
With all due respect, THAT is exactly the litigious attitude that got us in this mess in the first place!
N

[Mark_48]

I was in Walmart today in the photo department and as the girl behind the counter didn't look all that busy I stopped to ask her what the policy was on photos that looked pro quality. She didn't have much to say, but pointed out a box of pamphets on the counter titled "Walmart, Copyright Policy and You", a guide on what you need to know about reprinting professionally taken pictures. She did say the pamphlet included a "Copyright Release" and " Customer Acknowledgement " form which essentially takes Walmart off the hook regarding printing and copyright responsibility. The filled out forms presumably are kept on file at the store for 5 years. It appears Walmart wants your business, you just have to play by their rules. :)